Whether we ought to invade some other country has no bearing on whether a reasonable person would have concluded that Iraq posed a danger at the moment of the invasion of Iraq.
Well, North Korea is headed by an amoral, dangerous dictator, has WMDs, and has a history of invading its neighbors. So is NK as dangerous today as Iraq was in 2003, given all that we know about NK today and what we knew about Iraq in 2003?
Based on our inability to determine whether Iraq had dismantled its WMD programs or simply hidden them better than previously, and based on the stupendous lethality of the weapons involved, there was a danger.
What "inability to determine if Iraq had dismantled its WMD programs"? We had a pretty good ability to determine that until the UN weapons inspectors were hustled out of the country in advance of the US invasion.
This is the only point I'm making and the only one I'll argue about.
Well, you won't argue about it with me